Abstract:
Discourse analysis is in vogue as a field of enquiry, particularly in the guise of critical discourse analysis, which employs procedures not essentially different from literary criticism to identify ideological bias in texts. This article argues that, perhaps as a consequence, there is a good deal of conceptual confusion in the field. One example is the uncertainty of the scope of description, which is reflected in the ambiguity of the term 'function' and the failure to distinguish between text and discourse. Another is the tendency to equate social and linguistic theory with political commitment which raises the question of the relationship between analysis and interpretation. It is argued that this confusion makes suspect some of the principles and practices of critical discourse analysis, and calls into question the validity of the notion of authentic language currently prevalent in language pedagogy.
